rblack@smcnet.smc.edu (Russ Black, Media Center) (04/24/91)
From: rblack@smcnet.smc.edu (Russ Black, Media Center) If you look at current affairs at the time the Italian tanks were being manufactured it is not much different from the Japanese. Their design was in direct correlation to who they were fighting at the time. The people they were fighting in the 20's and 30's weren't the most advanced army in the world (Italians). Nobody though they would fight all of Europe and the United States. Most of the fighting the Japanese did was against light armour in China (French Tanks) and light defenses. Their armour and the fact that they were defeating their enemy left and right didn't help advance their technology. Only later in the war did they develop larger caliber guns and heavier tanks to meet Allied armour. They never got to use them because the war ended. Italian armour suffered much the same fate. As a matter of fact, the army as a whole suffered from such a fate. They weren't built up enough to sustain heavy losses. There equipment wasn't geared to total war. The only thing they has that was execellent and had sufficent replacement was their air force. Since they (Italians) surrendered in 1943 they didn't have the time to field newer armour. Japan was able to field better pieces of existing armour but, their Navy was getting sunk. Japanese officals even stated at the war trials that they weren't geared into total war until 1943. But, they were better geared to replace equipment and sustain losses.
smpod@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (04/25/91)
From: smpod@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov [Please don't use alternative quotemarks instead of ">", it makes extra work for me. Thanks. --CDR] rblack@smcnet.smc.edu (Russ Black, Media Center) writes... >Italian armour suffered much the same fate. As a matter of fact, the >army as a whole suffered from such a fate. The Italian artillery was comparatively excellent and performed very well alongside the Afrika Korp. >The only thing they has that was execellent and had >sufficent replacement was their air force. The Italian navy ships were superb designs but led by mediocre commanders and/or insufficiently protected by the Axis airforces.
wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) (04/30/91)
From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) smpod@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov writes: >The Italian artillery was comparatively excellent and performed very >well alongside the Afrika Korp. A point well made. While the morale of Italian infantry was, well, shakey at best, Italian gunners were known for sticking with their guns to the very last. My guess would be that the extra training given these troops made the difference. As for the quality of Italian guns... most of it seems to have been old and/or second-rate, but second-rate WWII artillery wasn't much worse than the latest equipment. Every army brought WWI-vintage (or older!) pieces into the war, and artillery simply didn't develop that much during the first half of this century, when compared to tanks, ships, aircraft, and even small arms. More important would be their artillery fire control, about which I know virtually nothing. Can anyone compare them to the other combattants in this regard ? -- Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com